I Wish I Had Never Gotten Rid Of My...

Comments

It was my first car, and other than the nostalgia it still manifests, it was fairly unexceptional. It only had a 318, automatic transmission, skinny 14 inch tires, drum brakes all around and no options. I bought it in the summer of 1974 for $900,(after watching Bullitt) a few months after finishing Army basic training. A month after buying it I was shipped to Alaska for two winters as a Nike/Hercules radar operator. The car suffered from neglect and went downhill quickly. Traded it for a 1972 Duster 340.

Get off the couch. Yes, it's a Taurus but the SHO was described by Csaba Csere no less, as "a dazzling car, the most important automotive breakthrough in years. The first sedan to combine top-rank, autobahn-ready performance with great handling...etc." Praise like that make it easy to forget its pedestrian heritage. This from C&D, 12/88.

Chubby Cheddar is a shmoe, and that rag of his ain't worth the ink it takes to print.

Other than that, good words for a good direction from FoMoCo. Why can't they learn to keep the baby when they empty the bath? :confuse:

I guess in retrospect, after reading through all of these reminiscences, that it would have been a good thing to keep the '65 Olds 98 convertible. It was in pretty decent shape and if I could have stored it, Barrett-Jackson could have seriously inflated its value for me, and I'd have walked away with the kids' tuitions!

I sure as heck wouldn't pay five cents to drive the thing again... :sick:

Heck, the whole SVO program was a kicker. I'm a big fan of skunkworks programs, personally. I think they're great for morale, for both interior and exterior publics, regardless if they produce viable commercial product.

Crying shame that some beancounters lump them in with marketing on the expense ledgers to drop the R&D numbers...

For the time it was phenomenal and Mr.Csere was probably guilty of hyperbole. But the worm does turn and by the last V8 incarnation journalists couldn't scrape it off their shoe fast enough. By then SHO was a 'Shouldn't Have Oughta'. Yesterday evening while driving to work, I saw a late 80's CRX (excuse me, Honda Civic CRX ) with what looked like 20 inch, honeycomb style rims. Horribly, horribly ugly, but it reminded me that I once owned a CRX, a 1984, the first year it came out. With 1.3 liters of Honda muscle it passed no one but the gas station. It was a true 50 mpg car.

buddy of mine in college had a 84 base civic ( the 1.3 with 4 sp). The fastest the car can go with 5 guys on board is about 60. But the darn thing starts every morning, whether it's 100 or -20 outside and it also got somewhere in the high 40's mpg. And like hondas of that era, the engine is bulletproof.

When I bought my 94 SHO, I test drove both the Manual and Automatic.I went in wanting the Manual.

I test drove the stick and was very surprised by the apparent lack of torque.Comparing it to my 1989 Chevy Z24, I feel that the Z had more off the line and 0-60 power, although I have never compared the specs.

I walked back into the dealer and explained my surprising disappointment and he then asked me to drive the Auto.It had power I had never felt in a car before and I was very surprised.It was bought on the spot.

Years later, I was told by a neighbor that this particular SHO had some sort of rare, optional Auto Transmission... the same as in his.I have no idea what it was, have not been able to find any info on it since, but that SHO ate all other SHOs on the road.

And for that reason, I wish I never got rid of it.

It started to get expensive to repair, and it absolutely stunk in the rain and snow.

Reading these posts has been a treat, as I can relate to so many of the vehicles. Of all the ones that got away from me, I'd say that the three Mach 1 Mustangs are missed the most. Two '69's (351/390) and a '71 (351C), all 4-speeds. The 1988 CRX that I bought new was amazing- it seemed so far ahead of its time and turned heads for months. A 1980 Plymouth Champ with the "Twin-Stick" transmission (remember those?), and an '89 Taurus SHO 5-speed that ran to its 7500 RPM redline with eager abandon, even with 130,000 miles on the clock. Lastly, a '90 Dodge Shadow we ordered for my wife, a four-door with the 2.5 Turbo motor, 5-speed stick, and 4-wheel discs on top of the luxury packages. So "weird" (especially the manual tranny) that the dealer wouldn't order it without a serious chunk o' cash down. I later contacted the Chrysler historical archive folks about its rarity and they said that there were only 70 non-ES pkg. four-doors made with that engine/tranny combo. (I guess that and 50 cents will get me a cup of coffee, eh?). No wonder the dealer was a little nervous!

The automatic tranny version of the SHO had a 3.2 liter DOHC engine, while the manual version used a 3.0. Both of them had 220 hp, but the 3.2 had 215 ft-lb of torque, versus 200 for the 3.0.

15 extra lb-feet of peak torque might not sound like much, but I guess if it gave you more torque across the entire rpm band, instead of just at some peak, that could make a noticeable difference.

As for the automatic, I dunno how "special" it was, but I'd imagine that it was beefed up to handle the power of the SHO engine. Back in 1994, the regular Taurus V-6 only put out 140 hp, so I'd imagine the extra 80 hp would be a strain.

Well, in all fairness, the Shadow was new while the SHO was pretty used by the time I got it. In addition, I did a meticulous break-in on the Shadow and then switched to synthetic oil, so it was an extremely strong runner. With regards to the levels of refinement, I'd say that the SHO was easily the smoother motor, in addition to being happier at high revs than the Shadow was. By 6000 rpm, the Shadow was done and over with, but was very torquey from about 1500 rpm on up.I'd actually say that in a drag race, the Shadow was the quicker one to 60 mph and probably even through the quarter mile.(As I said, this was an exceptionally tight motor.)Concerning the shift linkage, the Shadow's was definitely the better of the two, and was a big improvement over the previous Chrysler linkages.

sounds like a comment from someone who never owned one. regarding the '96 the suspension was a bit cluncky, transmission could have been a bit smoother, but other than that, it was a pretty good car. great startup sound.there was no such thing as an sho that was not a lot of fun to drive. had an '89, '92 auto and 96. my wife actually drove the '96. i traded the '92 because it was such a sick machine. i just to back it down a few notches.actually, the car i wish i had kept was an '86 mustang gt 5 speed. dodn't make the same mistake with my '91.

My favorite was a 1971 Olds Cutlass Supreme. White leather, white top and factory green metalflake paint. Stupid me traded it for a 1977 Pontiac Firebird because I liked the new square headlights. V8 yes, but nowhere as much a head turner as the Olds. I searched for years for that Olds with no success. I inherited the 67Camaro 327 4 speed along with many other fine cars from my dad. In an effort to regain karma I discovered the original owner of the Camaro (which my dad had restored nicely) was a pallbearer at his funeral. I called him and offered to give it back to him. No charge just come get it and I sign the title to him. The state of Ohio actually sent me a letter asking the "real" sale price cause they thought he was avoiding taxes. He was a distant fringe relative that upon hearing of his new car could only utter a barely discernable Thank You into the phone. It wasn't about the money value. It was about the guy with my 71 Olds maybe, just maybe reading this and calling to say "you want your Cutlass back? Yesss! Dave

The 96-99 SHO suffered from comparison to its earlier siblings. Critics said they generally liked it, but it wasn't as exciting as before. Basically it had become TOO civilized. Also the 24V duratech offered similar performance for less money. The unfortunate redesign hurt all Taurus sales.

Agree on the Mustang. I owned an 85 GT, last year of the carburetor. Good performance, fabulous sound track. In an act of maturity (which didn't last) I traded it for a Festiva. I know, I know.

While I'm a great believer in the old saying that what goes around comes around, I think you might be doing some wishful thinking here.

Still, a nice story is always welcome.

I once got one of those tax letters. What idiots they are -they not only expected me to fill out their damn form but pay the postage for me to return it to them! Yeah, right. Right into the circular file it went.

A reporter is interested in talking with "baby boomers" about their relationships with the cars they have owned over the course of their lifetimes so far. Did you love or hate your first car? Did you do something especially fun with or in your car? Did you buy a modern Edsel you were later embarassed to admit you ever owned? How did your cars define your lifestyle and/or your personal image at a point in time? This is an opportunity to share your favorite car stories, boomers! Please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com no later than February 21, 2007 with your daytime contact information and a brief summary of the memory you care to share.

Community Manager If you have any questions or concerns about the Forums, send me an email, karen@edmunds.com, or click on my screen name to send a personal message.

Most people who were able to take advantage for C4C feel happy and lucky. But maybe not everyone. Some who rushed to get in before the deadline may not be thrilled about the hasty decision they made. Others may have come to realize, in the metaphorical "morning after," that the dealer got the best deal, not the customer. Would anyone who now wishes he/she had never heard about C4C care to tell about their experience?